«

How do display devices like CRT, LCD and Plasma monitors, that use
transmitted light with additive color, compare to other devices like
projectors, that use transmitted light with subtractive color, to paper
that uses incident ambient light (that could be very bright) with
subtractive color, in terms of dynamic range? I am guessing that the
transmitted light devices will always have an advantage over ambient
devices but I am not at all sure about that. Is there an inherent
advantage to an additive vs. subtractive color model?
Much of the relationship must be temporal because the brain, it seems
to me, would perceive greater dynamic range by looking at a looking at
a very bright image after looking at a long series of dark ones
-probably because the brain is constantly moving its black point
around.
Is money better spent on a high end device like a plasma monitor, a
projector or a viewing room with controlled lighting, for displaying
still images with very high dynamic range?


Thanks,
Ron

wrote:
> How do display devices like CRT, LCD and Plasma monitors, that use
> transmitted light with additive color, compare to other devices like
> projectors, that use transmitted light with subtractive color, to paper
> that uses incident ambient light (that could be very bright) with
> subtractive color, in terms of dynamic range? I am guessing that the
> transmitted light devices will always have an advantage over ambient
> devices but I am not at all sure about that. Is there an inherent
> advantage to an additive vs. subtractive color model?
> Much of the relationship must be temporal because the brain, it seems
> to me, would perceive greater dynamic range by looking at a looking at
> a very bright image after looking at a long series of dark ones
> -probably because the brain is constantly moving its black point
> around.
> Is money better spent on a high end device like a plasma monitor, a
> projector or a viewing room with controlled lighting, for displaying
> still images with very high dynamic range?
>
>
> Thanks,


You bring up a good point. Virtually NO display device, including
prints, can show the whole range of a 16 bit per color image. This is
nothing new- prints never could show the whole range of film negatives.
Viewing the old transparencies in a completely dark room with a good
projector was the only way to even approach the range on films.

There is a lot of specsmanship going on in display advertising these
days. I do not believe at all the dynamic ranges they say they are
getting.

The reason for using RAW or things like that is that you can select
yourself what parts of the available tonal scale to print, not be a
slave to a computerized determination of which tones to save during
compression (yes, jpeg compresses tonal range).

To really get full tonal range of ANY display, wear dark clothing and
work in a completely dark room. Have no large white or light colored
objects between you and display, or anywhere near the display. Any
ambient light bounces off screens raising black level, and light from
light areas of screen can bounce off of you and white colored objects,
bouncing back at screen, where it is re-reflected.

> Ron

I thought of connecting two 8.5" Schmidt-Cassegrains to my Veiwmaster
and pointing it at the sun but that seems a little unwieldy.

wrote:
> I thought of connecting two 8.5" Schmidt-Cassegrains to my Veiwmaster
> and pointing it at the sun but that seems a little unwieldy.
>

Don't cross the streams.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"And now, They have even got a machine that can tell if you're thinking.
It's called a TV. If it's off, you're guilty." - Rev. Ivan Stang

wrote:
> wrote:
>> How do display devices like CRT, LCD and Plasma monitors, that use
>> transmitted light with additive color, compare to other devices
>> like
>> projectors, that use transmitted light with subtractive color, to
>> paper that uses incident ambient light (that could be very bright)
>> with subtractive color, in terms of dynamic range? I am guessing
>> that the transmitted light devices will always have an advantage
>> over ambient devices but I am not at all sure about that. Is there
>> an inherent advantage to an additive vs. subtractive color model?
>> Much of the relationship must be temporal because the brain, it
>> seems
>> to me, would perceive greater dynamic range by looking at a looking
>> at a very bright image after looking at a long series of dark ones
>> -probably because the brain is constantly moving its black point
>> around.
>> Is money better spent on a high end device like a plasma monitor, a
>> projector or a viewing room with controlled lighting, for
>> displaying
>> still images with very high dynamic range?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>
>
> You bring up a good point. Virtually NO display device, including
> prints, can show the whole range of a 16 bit per color image. This
> is
> nothing new- prints never could show the whole range of film
> negatives. Viewing the old transparencies in a completely dark room
> with a good projector was the only way to even approach the range on
> films.
>
> There is a lot of specsmanship going on in display advertising these
> days. I do not believe at all the dynamic ranges they say they are
> getting.
>
> The reason for using RAW or things like that is that you can select
> yourself what parts of the available tonal scale to print, not be a
> slave to a computerized determination of which tones to save during
> compression (yes, jpeg compresses tonal range).
>
> To really get full tonal range of ANY display, wear dark clothing
> and
> work in a completely dark room. Have no large white or light
> colored
> objects between you and display, or anywhere near the display. Any
> ambient light bounces off screens raising black level, and light
> from
> light areas of screen can bounce off of you and white colored
> objects,
> bouncing back at screen, where it is re-reflected.
>


Makes sense to me.

The most glorious display of a color image in my experience was a
Kodachrome slide viewed in a Kodak hand-held viewer with a strong
white source shining through and a bit of that light on the near
surface. I reckon it will be a while before the currents yield up a
comparable digital view.

--
Frank ess

> The reason for using RAW or things like that is that you can select
> yourself what parts of the available tonal scale to print, not be a
> slave to a computerized determination of which tones to save during
> compression (yes, jpeg compresses tonal range).
>

Maybe there could be something like virtual dynamic range where
software could morph saturation with its compliment according to the
depletion rate of your cones and morph out of bound brightness
according to the depletion rate of your rods. It would be like drinking
out of a fire hose with your eyes.

Thanks,
Ron

> Makes sense to me.
>
> The most glorious display of a color image in my experience was a
> Kodachrome slide viewed in a Kodak hand-held viewer with a strong white
> source shining through and a bit of that light on the near surface. I
> reckon it will be a while before the currents yield up a comparable
> digital view.
>
> --
> Frank ess

Absolutely. Kodachrome II for preference.